Giuliani Is Popular With GOP, Public Despite Negatives

"If you can go toe-to-toe with liberals in Massachusetts and New York City and acquit yourself well, you are prepared for D.C.," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Mead credits Giuliani with mental toughness rare among elected officials. Instead of seeking consensus, Giuliani openly defied many of the city's leading liberals on crime and welfare reform.

"Giuliani confronted not only the bureaucracy, but the community groups and the academics and the journalists and all those who said you couldn't be tough on the poor," Mead said. "He said that you can be — you can demand that they play by the rules. And he got away with it."

"It's very difficult for such a person to win Republican primaries," said Jack Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College.

Difficult, but not impossible, Norquist said. As an example, he pointed to Ronald Reagan.

"Reagan passed the most liberal abortion laws in the country and the most liberal divorce laws in the country as governor (of California), and then ran as the pro-life, social-conservative presidential candidate," Norquist said.

Giuliani's sharp-edge personality is another wild card. He sometimes rubs people, especially journalists, the wrong way.

"A nice person couldn't have done what Giuliani did in New York," Mead said. "You needed a pit bull. Giuliani is a pit bull."

He sometimes rubs people, especially journalists, the wrong way.

A) Today's "journalists" are not journalists. 90% of them are hacks with small minds, inflated egos and (not so) private agendas
B) Keeping (A) in mind, pissing off "journalists is more in the plus column than the minus column as far as I am concerned.

As regards social issues such as abortion, my viewpoint is realistic. The President does not make laws. The Constitutional authority and responsibility of the executive branch is to enforce the laws. A good President will enforce the law regardless of his personal beliefs.

The battle over issues like abortion will be won by winning over more of the public and then translating that into influencing the congress. The tide is slowing but inexorably shifting in the the battle for the hearts of the people regarding abortion. We should keep up the full press in getting the facts and truth out about it, rather than letting it become a single issue that derails our candidate and ushers in a Democrat that has no respect for enforcing law or the Constitution.

Dear cicero's_son,

"Spare me your holier-than-thou nonsense. I am not impressed."

My oh my. * chuckle *

That's quite a pompous, condescending, arrogant chip on your shoulder that you answer a courteous post with little but insult. Says a lot about you. Says a lot about your character.

;-)

"I'll stack my pro-life credentials up against anyone on this board."

Except that when it's no longer convenient, you'll vote for a pro-abort.

Got it.

"The fact is that the President can only do one meaningful thing for pro-lifers: appoint pro-life, constructionist judges.

"Guiliani has said that Scalia would be his model for a Supreme Court justice. That is good enough for me. It should be good enough for any pro-lifer who wants to see actual progress in our struggle."

Mr. Giuliani has also pointed to Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a good model of a Supreme Court justice.

Now, let's talk about "strict constructionists." Mr. Giuliani believes that the "right" to abortion is in the Constitution. I think he's an ass to think that. But he likely doesn't agree with my assessment.

In any event, he's said repeatedly that the Constitution guarantees women a right to procure the murder of their unborn children.

Thus, in his view, just what would be "strict construction" of the Constitution? To strike down a constitutional "right" to abortion? Or to uphold it?

I think that Mr. Giuliani is conning folks. He's not going to come out and say it. He isn't going to say, "I'll only appoint justices who don't see a right to abortion enshrined in the Constitution."

For one thing, he doesn't have to. Because folks figure that's taboo (although it isn't taboo for Democrats to say the reverse). For another thing, "strict constructionist" is kind of a code word among actual conservatives that means, in part, anti-Roe.

But there's no evidence that that's what Mr. Giuliani thinks. In fact, all the evidence points in the other direction. But he'll let you believe otherwise. It's a pretty good con, when you think about it. And folks want to be conned by him. Kinda sad. I used to think he was a straight-up guy.

As well, the president has more to say about abortion than just Supreme Court justices (although that is the single most important issue). The president can sign or veto legislation providing government funding for the abortions of poor women. Mr. Giuliani favors that funding. The president has the single most important voice in determining whether pro-abort groups will get government funding to do their dirty work, and to propagandize. No reason to believe that Mr. Giuliani would keep the money from them.

Embryonic stem cell research? Well, heck, if you don't mind a partial birth abortion or two, or a thousand (as Mr. Giuliani doesn't seem to mind), if you don't mind whacking full-term kids as the emerge from the birth canal, what'll be the big deal about whacking embryonic human beings?

Of course, you've already stated that you're actually opposed to using the bully pulpit of the presidency to further the cause. LOL! Yeah, that's right, we'll end abortion by sneaking up on everyone, and changing the laws while they aren't looking! ROTFLMAO!!

Unfortunately, we're not going to change things without persuading people that it's the right thing to do. And that actually requires moral suasion. And presidents have a great capacity to engage in just that.

"Unfortunately, we have a few Unappeasables on this board who are more interested in ritual purity than real progress."

I guess that makes me an "unappeasable."

Well, I'm sure that we're all unappeasable about some things. I'm sure that you have something that you won't compromise, either. The right to life of the unborn isn't one of them, but I bet if we dug deep enough, we'd find something. I think.

sitetest

Personally, I don't see a pro choice Republican President as being much of a hinderance to changing the minds of the people. Of course it would be better if he were on our side, but we can and have been doing it without the help of most Presidents. Public opinion continued to shift our way during the tenure of a pro abortion Clinton. Dedicated incrementalism will win this battle.

And I see the option of putting in a rabid pro abortion Democrat in as a lot worse. There is a difference between pro choice and pro abortion. It may not seem like it to many of us. But we ought to keep in mind that the Democrats want to encourage and promote abortion. That's worse in my book than just the willingness to allow it. And any one of the current crop of Dems would work hard at doing just that. And would spit on any rulings or changes in the law that a less liberal congress might pass.

Metalurgist is apparently one of those "conservatives" who think that Big Government is fine, provided it is on his side.

Big government tax breaks for perverts? Big government programs and sanctions for perverts?

"States' rights" ??? States vote to ratify Amendments to the Constitution.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Grover Norquist. Big phony president of a 501(c) tax-exempt corporation, drawing cushy salary at the expense of the taxpayers. How many tax leeching "non-profits" is Mr. Norquist affiliated with?

How many of these "non-profit" groups on corporate welfare do we really need Mr. Norquist???

How about tax-exempt reform? There are more leftist nut groups on this type of corporate welfare than there are leftists who actually work for a living.

When will the Republicans ever learn to defund the Left?

Metalurgist is apparently one of those "conservatives" who think that Big Government is fine, provided it is on his side.

Big government tax breaks for perverts? Big government programs and sanctions for perverts?

"States' rights" ??? States vote to ratify Amendments to the Constitution.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Grover Norquist. Big phony president of a 501(c) tax-exempt corporation, drawing cushy salary at the expense of the taxpayers. How many tax leeching "non-profits" is Mr. Norquist affiliated with?

How many of these "non-profit" groups on corporate welfare do we really need Mr. Norquist???

How about tax-exempt reform? There are more leftist nut groups on this type of corporate welfare than there are leftists who actually work for a living.

When will the Republicans ever learn to defund the Left?

Sitetest-

In re-reading your initial post, I see now that I misunderstood your tone. I thought you were being condescending. I see now that it was plain courtesy. You have my apologies.

As for the rest of the discussion, I am merely keeping an open heart and mind about Guiliani. As I said earlier in the thread, I have not made up my mind whom to support. What I can say with certitude is that I will support any GOP nominee in 2008. Romney. Hunter. Gingrich. Even (shudder) McCain.

My vitriol on this thread was directed at those who threaten to withhold their support for our nominee because he or she may fail a purity test. It certainly is not meant for my fellow pro-lifers.

Dear cicero's_son,

Apologies accepted. I apologize if I didn't communicate well. I've only been posting here nine years, so please cut me some slack. ;-)

"As for the rest of the discussion, I am merely keeping an open heart and mind about Guiliani."

I understand. My mind and heart are not so open to Mr. Giuliani. It isn't that I have anything against the man. I've followed his career since the Reagan years, and have always thought he was decent guy.

However, Mr. Giuliani seems to be a pretty firm and principled believer in a constitutional "right" to abortion. I strongly disagree with his view, but I respect that up until now, he's been open and forthright about it. No beating around the bush.

But it is a disqualification for me. I won't vote for a pro-abort for president.

Some folks tell me that I have to choose the lesser of two evils. But, in that it damages the pro-life movement from within, in my view, the election of a Republican pro-abort to the presidency is even worse for the cause of life than seeing a Democrat pro-abort elected. Republicans will make some effort to stand against a pro-abort Democrat. A pro-abort Republican president can readily co-opt Republicans. This is in part how Mr. Bush got passed some of the things he's done, things that would have been much tougher for a liberal Democrat president to get passed.

Now, it's possible that Mr. Giuliani could have a change of heart between now and November 2008. I'm not counting on it, and I'd treat such a "conversion" with extreme skepticism, but I'd at least listen.

But for now, based on his consistent support for a fairly extreme view of "abortion" rights, no, I can't vote for him.

sitetest

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.